Search

I discovered consciousness on my own many years ago. Prior to that, I do not recall hearing or reading any discussion of the subject. I would not have tuned into it if I had.

I was thinking about death and asked a fateful question. What is it about me that changes when I die?

After asking that question, I realized the answer was not nearly as simple as I had automatically assumed. I thought about the difference between a living person and a dead one. All the same atoms are there. All the same molecules are there. The atoms and molecules are merely interacting in a different way. Large clusters of molecules, cells, stop exchanging molecules that contain bound up energy. Cells specific to the brain, neurons, stop communicating with each other.

Then something struck me.

When neurons die, they stop communicating with each other. However, even when they are alive, they do not communicate with each other instantaneously. Neurons communicate with each other only as quickly as electrical signals can propagate down their axons. The entire chain of communication is not even electronic. When the signals get to the ends of axons, they change form. They are replaced by the motion of molecules called neurotransmitters that travel across gaps called synaptic clefts. Not only do neurons not communicate with each other instantaneously, they communicate with each other through a relatively slow mechanical process.

Then, I looked all around me and realized how unified my experience was and how that experience differed from the neurons in my brain. Where did this unified experience take place? Did it take place on the terminals of axons or did it take place on the dendrites that received the neurotransmitters? How could I have anything like a unified experience when my brain was so obviously a lot of separate parts?

As I reflected on this, I realized the experience I was having was the real me. I closed my eyes and realized that who and what I really was still existed even though I was not looking at anything. I realized, further, that this experience would persist even if I had no external sensations at all. There was something inside of me, my “self”, that was experiencing my existence.

This discovery astonished me. I had been accustomed to thinking of my brain and my body as mere physical objects like rocks, chairs, automobiles or radios. Indeed, my body and brain were physical objects. However, I realized that there was something contained inside of my body, probably inside of my brain, that was not, and had never been, like the physical world I perceived around me. I thought I had discovered the soul.

I explained this observation to several friends. Some of them immediately caught on and some of them never seemed to get what I was saying. The ones who caught on had an experience similar to my own. They believed, as I did, that they were perceiving their own soul. I explained this observation to an English professor I was taking a class from and was surprised to learn that she was familiar with the concept.

Later, I read a quote attributed to the mathematician and philosopher René Descartes. Descartes had made the observation that while the brain seems to be infinitely divisible the mind seems to be unified.

Eventually, as I investigated further, I came across the term “consciousness”, and learned this was the name philosophers and psychologists assigned to the experience I had discovered. It occurred to me why so few people seemed to have recognized the nature of this phenomenon. The problem was the name itself. We are so used to describing a person who is awake and aware as “conscious” that most of us never make the distinction when the term is used in the more philosophical sense.

Once I had a name for this phenomenon, it was easy to find books and essays that discussed it. I found several theories. There were the theories that I came to refer to as the “pile it higher and deeper” theories. These were the theories by thinkers such as Douglas Hofstadter, the author of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. These people believed consciousness was the result of ever-increasing complexity. They supposed that out of the complexity of the brain consciousness somehow “emerged”. To me these theories seemed like saying that if you made an object out of lead, and made it complicated enough, it would somehow turn into gold.

I read an entire book by Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes had a theory about when and how consciousness came about, but no real explanation of what it was.

Eventually, I ran across a book on a bookstore shelf by Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained. It surprised me that someone thought they had found an explanation. I started to read Dennett’s book, but decided he was completely missing the point. He seemed to be conflating the way the brain processes information with the actual experience of consciousness. More recently, I watched a video by Dennett that explains the basics of his theory. Dennett uses what amounts to magic tricks to show how the brain’s way of processing information creates the “illusion” of consciousness. What I realized, however, is that Dennett’s explanation is, itself, a kind of magic trick. It obscures consciousness by redirecting the listener’s attention away from it. I immediately understood why many philosophers refer to his theory as “consciousness explained away”.

Over the years, it has been disturbing to learn that Dennett has a large following, especially in the scientific community. However, I have a theory for why his ideas exist and why they have received such easy acceptance.

Dennett is part of a movement in philosophy called “materialism”. Materialists attempt to explain the entire universe, including the human experience of the universe, in terms of mechanical processes. To a materialist, the universe is a giant machine that has no meaning or purpose, but that merely exists in time and space. Consequently, materialists are atheists.

However, that may be putting the horse before the carriage. In my opinion it is atheism that precedes materialism. It is people who embrace the non-existence of God or other divine phenomena who become materialists.

Materialists hope to indoctrinate all of humanity into their belief system, but there is one thing that stands between them and their ultimate goal. That one thing is consciousness. As long as there are people who are aware of consciousness and its nature, there will be people who believe that there is more to life and the universe than mere mechanical processes.

I have often speculated on the true nature of materialism. It seems at times that materialists are inhabited by some sort of evil that drives them to reject the otherworldly nature of consciousness. More often, it seems that they merely see consciousness as an obstacle to their political goals. Materialists tend to believe in social agendas that include replacing what some refer to as natural law with invented systems of their own. The most obvious example of this kind of invented system is socialism. I have noticed a strong overlapping of socialism and materialism.

Materialism is dangerous. The moment that materialists gain the upper hand in the philosophical community will be the moment that belief in meaning, purpose, and especially divine purpose, will be transferred to the realm of abnormal psychology. People who believe in God will no longer be viewed as exercising a right. They will be considered sick and in need of help—possibly hospitalization. I think you can see where I am going with this.

Clearly, consciousness negates materialism. However, the negation of materialism is not the only reason why consciousness is important. It is also important because it demands an expanded view of the universe. One cannot recognize the nature and power of consciousness without also recognizing its implications for how the universe is structured. Either consciousness is inherent to the universe or it is supported by the universe. Either way, the universe is a much more compelling structure than it would be if consciousness did not exist.

Consciousness seems to be distinct from the physical universe. However, despite this distinction, it somehow communicates with the physical universe. Somehow, through the brain, consciousness is able to get word out to the physical universe that it exists; and somehow, through the brain, the events of the physical universe are able to get back to consciousness. Somehow, the brain is where the rubber of consciousness meets the road of the physical universe. I have a theory about this connection that I will explain in a later blog.

The important thing to realize at this point is this. Consciousness is real, it is the visible component of whom and what we really are, and no one, especially Daniel Dennett, has come close to explaining it or explaining it away.

Related

7 Responses to “What Is Consciousness and Why Does It Matter”

I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for great info I was looking for this information for my mission.

Most excellent article! Many people never realize what you did in just a single introspective session. For many, it takes years. Well done!

Indeed, as you so well put it, consciousness is something to be experienced, not something you can intellectualize and attribute to physical properties. This shouldn’t let us worry much. Let me give you a typical example: experiencing the taste of chocolate. You can analyse chocolate and break it apart in its individual molecules and catalogue each, and make a list. You can fully describe the process of chocolate manufacturing. You can define its colour using a precise, numerical measurement (and, to a degree, its consistency, texture, and so forth). These are all objective characteristics of chocolate, and you can list them as thoroughly as you wish. However, that does never convey the experience of tasting chocolate!

Thus, someone can be a specialist in chemistry, manufacturing processes, or listing physical attributes of chemical compounds, but none of those descriptions actually represent “taste”. What does chocolate taste like? What reactions inside the mind does it trigger? We can all experience them, but not describe them.

Nevertheless, all you need is to give a bit of chocolate to someone and let them taste it that they will immediately understand the experience of tasting chocolate. It goes even further: two persons, both having tasted chocolate, know exactly what the experience is. They have absolutely no doubts about it. If someone tries to reason with them and saying that tasting chocolate is like riding a bicycle, they will say, “no, it isn’t — it’s completely different”. If both chocolate-tasters talk about the experience of chocolate, they might not have words or concepts to describe it, or they might not understand the chemical processes (or know how chocolate is manufactured), but they can certainly know what the experience is and share it — if you know that someone has tasted chocolate, you know that his or her experience is the same as yours. Someone who never tasted chocolate has absolutely no clue about what you are talking about.

So, yes, it’s hard for materialists, but the universe is full of things that can be fully experienced by different people, and they know they have this experience, but it cannot be described, analysed, dissected, reduced to individual components. But there is nothing mystical or magical about it. Like tasting chocolate, consciousness is something as natural as everything else in the universe. There is nothing “special” about consciousness, except that it defies being categorised like materialists like to do with everything else.

Fortunately for us human beings, the experience of consciousness is nothing “new” — as long as there have been human beings, they have experienced consciousness. Some have written books about it; some, even better than that, have developed accurate methods of “feeling the taste of consciousness”, and, through it, figured out a way to deal with anxiety, frustration, and insatisfaction. They’re called by us in the West “Buddhists”; although a more correct word for them would be “people getting familiar with their own minds”, which is pretty much what Buddhists do and what they call to themselves.

Instead of reading bleak intellectual dissertations about what consciousness is supposed to be, I would suggest that you go out and meet a qualified Buddhist teacher. Fortunately, we have some rather good ones, even here in the West. You can rest assured that they have the same experience of consciousness that you also have (we are, after all, human beings 🙂 ), and have long been practicing accurate methods of figuring out what it is and how it impacts our world, our feelings, our selves, and the way we relate with others — and, most important, how through recognition of one’s own consciousness, we can also improve ourselves, deal with frustration, anxiety, and insatisfaction, and lead better lives, aiding others to do the same. Buddhism is not a religion, unlike what we tend to believe about them; their only dogma is “we have no dogmas”, and everything is put to the question — even difficult things like, “do we have a self?” or even “is this ‘mind’ I experience real or not?” But they don’t rely upon words to come up with answers; instead, just like you did, they just rely on experiencing their own consciousness and learn how to get familiar with it.

Give it a try. Expect no quick results, but you’ll be surprised (in the good sense) of what else there is inside this “consciousness” that you can experience, and put it to good use — for your own benefit and, simultaneously, for the benefit of others.

Hi there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with
us so I came to look it over. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m bookmarking
and will be tweeting this to my followers! Superb blog and
outstanding design and style. https://caferule.com/

Its such as you read my thoughts! You appear to know a
lot approximately this, like you wrote the guide in it or something.
I believe that you just could do with some percent to force the message home a
bit, but other than that, that is excellent blog. A fantastic read.